ant-dev mailing list archives

RE: FileCollections WAS FileSets with optional basedir and absolute paths for includes

Date

Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:28:19 GMT

> From: Matt Benson [mailto:gudnabrsam@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:13 PM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: FileCollections WAS FileSets with optional basedir and
absolute
> paths for includes
>
> Right now I am leaning toward:
>
> public interface oata.types.FileCollection {
> public Iterator iterator();//of Files
> }
Traditionally we've been returning arrays.
The nice things about arrays is that they are typed.
Since we're stuck to JDK1.2, we can't write
Iterator<File>. I lean more towards arrays.
> This should have the added benefit of built-in support
> in ac:for, though I suppose wrapping in a path would
> work as well.
OTOH interop with <ac:for> is nice. But since <ac:for>
uses reflection to get at the iterator() method, we
can very easily put the interoperability in the
concrete types.
> Incidentally, should Path not implement
> FileCollection?
I guess... I always thought we (and Peter ;-) were
abusing Path for its FileCollection-like behavior,
and making it implement FileCollection kind of allows
to abuse Path even more.
Paths is ordered file collection, and remove duplicates.
But in a way, they are also FileCollection too.
So I'm torn ;-) Practically would say yes.
By the way, what should be the contract for FileCollection
regarding duplicate files?
> I still need a name for "an absolute collection of
> files" that is hopefully short enough to make a usable
> XML element name a la FileSet, and am eagerly awaiting
> suggestions.
How about just <files>? --DD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org